The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-10-02
The Ban Pl.y.rs' Brotherhood.

In the controversy that Mr. j. N Ward, pres
ident of the Brotherhood, and Presidents Young
of the League, had regarding the players organi-
cation, the following letter written. It is
the last so far from Mr.. Ward.
DETROIT. Sept. %. 1887.
Mr. N, Il. Young. President National League
Dear Sir:-I suppose l should have taken your
letter of Sept. l terminating all correspond
ence between the League and tho Brotherhood;
but the existence of an organization Of players
being something altogether new in baseball af
fairs and its objects imporfectiy understood.
we were willing to 60 more than half way in
order to secure friendly conference I tn ere
fore wrote You again, and your reply, refus IN e
us q recognition, is now before me. see, ~ q
reported interview that you declare this to be
official; so that write you now with no hope OF
accomplishing anything other than to set the
Brotherhood right in some matters concerning
which, there is difference Of opinion
First. then. did go to the meeting Of the
joint committee on rules as a delegate from the
brotherhood. and the committee did receive me
as such. was first invited to attend al a player,
but refused, and only consented to go at all
wnen Mr.. Spaldng agreed by telegraph with
Mr.. Day that it should be delegate Of the
brotherhood. These two gentlemen constituted
q majority OF the League committee. but to make
il still more thoroughly understood, Mr. Day
stated, in the presence Of ths entire committee,
and before any business had beer transacted,
that mr. Ward wished it understood that he
came q delegate from the Ball players
Brotherhood" If the secretary failed to place
this in the minutes. it cannot on that account
alter the facts. 1 fail to appreciate the foree3of
your deduction thatif had been thsre a dele
gate from the brotherhood, my expenses would
have been paid by the latter. went at the in
vitation OF the committee, then why should il
not pay my expenses just as il paid the others3
You say that you cannot see what difference
it can make to the players whether the proposed
amendments to the contracts are to be consid-
cred as emanatinc from tho individual players
or from a secret society, etc.
From what individual players, may I ask.
would you expect these propositions to emanatei
players fairly represented tho views of the play
ers at large! By whom would these individuals
be selected. and If by ali the players would that
not again be an organization Of players only
under another. or NO. pamet
The concluding portion of your letter reads
smoothly on its face, but 1t is rather the care
fully chosen language of League official than
a disiuterested expression OF opinion.
You speak of accomplishing these reforms by
the ''old and usual means" What old and
usual meansi Has it been customary for the
play ers to be represented at the meetings of the
Leagues Or has the League shown any recent
disposition to legislate for the interests of the
playArsl The buying aud selling" Of players
was unheard or three years ago and "reserva-
ton by the League" the conspiracy by means
OF which the players of a retiring club ped
died around at SO much per man and without
regard to the players wishes, is growth of the
past year. 1t is from these same old and usual
methods that we seek to escape
This entire question Of reform in the contract
owes its origin to the existence OF the brother
hood, and can you now expect that BODY TO stop
aside in favor of individual pl&yers2 Would it
not be more consistent for the brotherhood to
make to you WHISTLER You confer with COM
mttee of individual players a committee
from the brotherhood, since the brotherhood
practically is the players.
IT you are correctly reported in your interview
OF 2lst inst. theL you. yourself, have been led
into error respecting the brotherhood. On what
ground do you assume 1t to be a secret organlza-
tion2 It's business meetings. like those of many
other bodies the League for example, are not
open to the general public. but there is ob-
cation of secrecy imposed upon any member,
and it's constitution and bylaws are free at any
time. for your inspection. Your declaration
that Its protective feature is more or less of
guarantee of immunity to members of the order
against the enforcement of the laws of the
League and the provisions of contracts" is alto
gether unwarranted by any single action of the
brotherhood. On the contrary. 1t Is distinctly
not protect any member in wrong doing.
The fact of the matter is. the League has de-
cided against the brotherhood without knowing
or apparently caring anything about ITS objects
or intentions. 1t certainly has not done on
account of any propositions made by the broth
erhood because none have yet been submitted.
IL must. then, have been solely the ground
that it Is organization and if the cause of the
League necessitates the taking Of such ground,
what Is to be inferred as to it's character!
But do the macnates OF the League really
think they can crush this movement by simply
refusing TO notice it'll Is their opinion of their
players snch as to lead them to believe that a
mere refusal tcArecognize their brotherhood will
choke it out of exstsnce2 If SO they make
most grievcus mistake.
The brotherhood wants only what is right
Il did not decide that it will have certain
changes, but it declared what iu its opinion were
desirable. and appointed a committee to confer
with the League. and IL it's demands had been
shown to be unreasonable thew would have been
modified accordingly. But. having bern refused
a conference or even a recognition by the mag
mates of the League. thu issue is forced upon US,
and since we so forward with you we
will be obliged 10 60 alone. Yours respectfully
j. NJ WARD. President.